AUDIT REPORT 

Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction 

at New Nuclear Facilities 

OIG-09-A-17 September 29, 2009 

All publicly available OIG reports (including this report) are accessible through 

NRC’s Web site at: 

http:/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/ 
UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 September 29, 2009 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/ 

 Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT: AUDIT OF NRC’S OVERSIGHT OF 

CONSTRUCTION AT NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

(OIG-09-A-17) 

Attached is the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) audit report titled, Audit of 

NRC’s Oversight of Construction at Nuclear Facilities. The report presents the 

results of the subject audit. Agency comments provided at the September 16, 

2009, exit conference and a subsequent meeting September 21, 2009, have 

been incorporated, as appropriate, into this report. 

Please provide information on actions taken or planned on the recommendation 

within 30 days of the date of this memorandum. Actions taken or planned are 

subject to OIG followup as stated in Management Directive 6.1. 

We appreciate the cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during 

the audit. If you have any questions or comments about our report, please 

contact me at 415-5915 or Sherri Miotla, Team Leader, Nuclear Safety Audit 

Team, at 415-5914. 

Attachment: As stated 
Electronic Distribution

Edwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Reactor 

 Safeguards 

E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and 

 Licensing Board Panel 

Stephen G. Burns, General Counsel 

Brooke D. Poole, Jr., Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

James E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer 

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs 

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs 

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission 

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations 

Bruce S. Mallett, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor 

 and Preparedness Programs, OEDO 

Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, 

 State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO 

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management 

 and Chief Information Officer, OEDO 

Vonna L. Ordaz, Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Kathryn O. Greene, Director, Office of Administration 

Patrick D. Howard, Director, Computer Security Officer 

Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director, Office of Enforcement 

Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

Guy P. Caputo, Director, Office of Investigations 

Thomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services 

James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Corenthis B. Kelley, Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II 

Mark A. Satorius, Regional Administrator, Region III 

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been renewed worldwide interest in constructing 

nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

responsible for licensing and inspecting construction activities of new 

civilian-use nuclear reactor and fuel cycle facilities built in the United 

States. The nuclear industry is responsible for ensuring that the design 

and construction of these facilities are in accordance with applicable NRC 

regulations. 

During the 1970s and 1980s, NRC and its predecessor, the Atomic 

Energy Commission, oversaw the industry’s construction of the first 

generation of U.S. nuclear plants. Several of the construction projects 

experienced significant problems related to design and construction 

quality resulting in the cancellation of several plants in various stages of 

construction. Congress, at that time, questioned NRC’s ability to provide 

effective regulatory oversight of the construction activities and directed the 

agency to study ways to improve quality in the construction of future 

plants. In response to the congressional directive, NRC issued, in May 

1984, NUREG-1055, Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in 

the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants: A Report to 

Congress. The report concluded that NRC's inspection practices were 

inadequate and offered several recommendations to improve NRC 

programs. 

In 2006, NRC reorganized in response to the anticipated new reactor 

licensing and construction inspection workload. The Office of New 

Reactors (NRO) was created in headquarters with the primary 

responsibility for developing the Construction Inspection Program (CIP) 

and its associated program guidance. The CIP was designed to ensure 

that plants are built in accordance with the approved design and licensing 

requirements and will operate in compliance with NRC regulations. The 

agency continues to revise the CIP. In March 2009, NRO issued NROREG-112, New Reactor Construction Experience Program, to better 

inform the CIP. NRO-REG-112 provides guidance for a new construction 

lessons learned process that is informed by domestic and international 

experiences, past lessons learned, and construction inspection activities. 

PURPOSE

The audit objective was to determine if and how NRC is identifying and 

incorporating lessons learned in its new Construction Inspection Program. 

Appendix A provides information on the audit scope and methodology. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

ii 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

NRC’s process for identifying construction lessons learned contains some, 

but not all, of the key elements of a successful program. While NROREG-112 lays out the foundation for gathering lessons learned data 

related to construction, it does not comprehensively contain all the key 

elements identified as important to the success of an organization’s 

lessons learned program. As such, the lack of well-developed guidance 

could jeopardize the CIP’s goal to prevent recurrences of constructionrelated problems and may compromise the public’s confidence in NRC’s 

ability to effectively oversee new nuclear construction projects. 

RECOMMENDATION

This report makes one recommendation to help NRC improve its 

Construction Inspection Program. The recommendation appears in 

Section III. 

OIG ANALYSIS OF AGENCY COMMENTS

An exit conference was held with NRC senior executives on 

September 16, 2009. Agency officials generally agreed with the report’s 

finding and recommendation and decided not to provide formal comments. 

This final report incorporates informal comments provided by the agency, 

as appropriate. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

iii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIP Construction Inspection Program 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRO Office of New Reactors 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

iv 

[Page intentionally left blank] 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... i 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS................................................. iii 

I. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................1 

II. PURPOSE ...................................................................................4 

III. FINDING......................................................................................5 

NRC’S CIP NEEDS ENHANCEMENTS TO ACHIEVE ITS

FULL POTENTIAL..........................................................................5 

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS..............................................................11 

APPENDIX 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................13 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

vi 

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

1 

I. BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been renewed worldwide interest in constructing 

nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

responsible for licensing and inspecting construction activities of new 

civilian-use nuclear reactor and fuel cycle facilities built in the United 

States. The nuclear industry is responsible for ensuring that the design 

and construction of these facilities are in accordance with applicable NRC 

regulations. 

 Early Construction Issues 

During the 1970s and 1980s, NRC and its predecessor, the Atomic 

Energy Commission, oversaw the industry’s construction of the first 

generation of U.S. nuclear plants. Several of the construction projects 

experienced significant problems related to design and construction 

quality resulting in the cancellation of several plants in various stages of 

construction. For example, construction at the proposed Marble Hill plant 

in Indiana was stopped due to quality problems relating to concrete and 

piping installation. Additionally, construction at the proposed Zimmer plant 

in Ohio was halted due to quality issues caused by lack of management 

experience and an undersized staff. Neither plant was ever licensed to 

generate nuclear power. 

Congress, at that time, questioned NRC’s ability to provide effective 

regulatory oversight of the construction activities and directed the agency 

to study ways to improve quality in the construction of future plants. The 

study was to focus on the causes of the major quality-related construction 

problems and the untimely detection and correction of those problems. 

In response to the congressional directive, NRC issued, in May 1984, 

NUREG-1055, Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the 

Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants: A Report to Congress. 

The report concluded that NRC's inspection practices were inadequate 

and offered several recommendations to improve NRC programs. 

 NRC’s Construction Inspection Program

The Construction Inspection Program (CIP) was designed to ensure that 

plants are built in accordance with the approved design and licensing 

requirements and will operate in compliance with NRC regulations. The 

agency continues to revise the CIP. For example, the agency 

incorporated some modifications suggested in its report to Congress, 

NUREG-1055, to improve NRC’s construction oversight. Further, the CIP 

carries out its mandate by ensuring that licensees and applicants 

construct the facilities according to approved design criteria, using 

appropriate practices and quality materials. Also, the CIP includes the 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

2 

construction inspection manual chapters and inspection procedures that 

support NRC’s licensing process. Through the CIP, NRC staff will 

coordinate inspections with licensee construction schedules. 

The CIP has four phases. The first phase supports a licensing decision 

for an early site permit, the second phase supports issuance of a 

combined license, and the third and fourth phases support construction 

activities and preparation for operations. 

In 2006, NRC reorganized in response to the anticipated new reactor 

licensing and construction inspection workload. The Office of New 

Reactors (NRO) was created in headquarters with the primary 

responsibility for developing the CIP and its associated program guidance. 

To consolidate construction inspection oversight of new nuclear facilities, 

a Center for Construction Inspection was created in Region II, Atlanta, 

Georgia. Region II inspectors have the primary responsibility for 

implementing the CIP. 

 

NRC’s Construction Lessons Learned Process 

In March 2009, NRO issued NRO-REG-112, New Reactor Construction 

Experience Program, to better inform the CIP. NRO-REG-112 provides 

guidance for a new construction lessons learned process that is informed 

by domestic and international experiences, past lessons learned, and 

construction inspection activities. More specifically, the NRO-REG-112 

process will be used to evaluate experiences and events to determine if 

they rise to the level of lessons learned. These lessons learned will be 

used to inform and revise the CIP as necessary, as seen in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Construction Lessons Learned Process 

Source: OIG analysis
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

3 

Status of New Reactor Activities 

For fiscal year 2009, the agency budgeted $243.5 million, including 819 

full-time equivalent staff for new reactor activities to include the CIP. 

These staff members provide varying amounts of support to the CIP on an 

ongoing basis. 

N1RC expects all applications for new nuclear power plants to comply with 

the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 

52, which implements a one-step combined construction and operating 

license process.1

 Upon receiving NRC approval, applicants receive a 

combined license that consists of a construction permit and a conditional 

operating license for the new reactor. As of July 2009, NRC was actively 

reviewing 17 combined operating license applications for new nuclear 

power plants, and the agency anticipates the submission of another 5 

combined operating license applications by fiscal year 2011. Figure 2 

indicates the projected locations of new plants across the United States. 

To date, NRC has approved: 

 Three early site permits,2

 with a fourth under review. 

 

 Four standard design certifications,3 with four more under review. 

 One limited work authorization.4

 

1

 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants. The 104 currently operating 

plants were licensed and built under the two-step process in 10 CFR Part 50, where applicants were required to apply 

for the construction permit and operating license separately. 

2 An early site permit is a Commission-approved partial construction permit issued under subpart A of Part 52, for a 

site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities. 

3 Design certification is achieved through NRC's rulemaking process subsequent to staff’s review and approval of 

a standardized nuclear power plant design, independent of a site-specific application to construct or operate a plant. 

4

 A limited work authorization specifies the activities that the holder is authorized to perform, all at the applicant’s own 

risk as the issuance of the limited work authorization has no bearing on receiving a combined license. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

4 

Figure 2. Location of Projected New Nuclear Power Plants 

 Source: NRC We

Source: Information depicted based on NRC public Web site as of July 9, 2009. 

II. PURPOSE

The audit objective was to determine if and how NRC is identifying and 

incorporating lessons learned in its new Construction Inspection Program. 

Appendix A provides information on the audit scope and methodology. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

5 

III. FINDING 

NRC’s CIP Needs Enhancements to Achieve its Full Potential 

NRC’s process for identifying construction lessons learned contains some, 

but not all, of the key elements of a successful program. While NROREG-112 lays out the foundation for gathering lessons learned data 

related to construction, it does not comprehensively contain all the key 

elements identified as important to the success of an organization’s 

lessons learned program. As such, the lack of well-developed guidance 

could jeopardize the CIP’s goal to prevent recurrences of constructionrelated problems and may compromise the public’s confidence in NRC’s 

ability to effectively oversee new nuclear construction projects. 

Key Elements for Successful Lessons Learned Programs 

A comprehensive process for capturing lessons learned, which includes 

elements with clearly defined criteria, is vital to an organization’s success. 

The Construction Industry Institute is a consortium of more than 100 firms 

from both the public and private arenas joined together to measurably 

improve the construction industry. Through research and development of 

best practices, the Construction Industry Institute published a study5 that 

identifies key process elements for successful lessons learned programs. 

 Leadership: Upper management needs to strongly support the 

process and encourage the use of lessons learned information. 

 Definition: Organizations with well-established processes for capturing 

lessons learned have defined the term “lessons learned.” The 

Construction Industry Institute defines lessons learned as “knowledge 

gained from experience, successful or otherwise, for the purpose of 

improving future performance.” 

 Collection, Analysis, and Implementation: Organizations should have 

a well-defined work process for submitting or collecting potential 

lessons learned issues and those issues should be screened and 

analyzed by qualified personnel. Organizations should incorporate any 

resulting lessons learned into work processes, procedures, or policies 

and then effectively communicate lessons learned information to the 

staff. 

 

5

Construction Industry Institute: Research Summary 230-1, Effective Management Practices and Technologies for 

Lessons Learned Programs, dated May 2007; Implementation Resource 230-2, Implementation of Lessons Learned 

Programs, dated July 2007; and Research Report 230-11, An Analysis of Lessons Learned Programs in the 

Construction Industry, dated November 2007. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

6 

 Resources: Organizations should provide the resources and 

information technology infrastructure needed to capture, analyze, and 

share lessons learned with staff and other stakeholders. 

 Maintenance and Improvement: Organizations should have a 

mechanism for soliciting feedback from stakeholders on how to 

improve their lessons learned processes. 

 Culture: An organization’s culture should include a lessons learned 

process that is an integral part of day-to-day activities for all staff. 

NRC’s Construction Lessons Learned Process Lacks Key Elements 

NRC’s process for identifying construction lessons learned contains some, 

but not all, of the key elements of a successful program. NRC’s 

leadership has publicly stated its commitment to the importance of lessons 

learned. The agency has also incorporated guidance for maintaining and 

improving its lessons learned process. However, the agency falls short in 

formally identifying a lessons learned definition, collection and 

implementation procedures, as well as appropriate resources. NRC’s 

culture regarding its construction lessons learned process also tends to be 

informal. 

 Leadership: The NRC Commission and other senior managers 

consistently emphasize the importance of understanding past and 

current construction lessons learned as critical to the success of new 

reactor construction efforts. For example, a Commission member 

noted that the agency needs to make sure all staff continue to 

“understand the mistakes of the past.” Another Commission member 

stated that numerous historical lessons provide important insights 

related to quality and oversight issues during the previous period of 

construction. According to senior NRC managers, understanding 

NRC’s past events is the key to avoiding future problems with new 

construction. And, if the agency is not proactive in capturing lessons 

learned, it will “not keep the memory of past events or learn from 

them.” 

 Definition: NRC does not have an official definition for lessons 

learned. Agency managers and staff presume that the definition is 

commonly understood. Yet, they all have different understandings and 

expectations for what lessons learned might include. Most believe that 

lessons learned are negative events and, therefore, they overlook the 

possibility of including a positive event as a lessons learned. For 

example, several inspectors said that they consider lessons learned to 

be limited to learning from past mistakes to prevent future problems, 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

7 

although a senior manager stated that lessons learned are a 

combination of learning from past problems as well as using good 

management practices. 

 Collection, Analysis, and Implementation: Regarding collection, NRC 

lacks the formal criteria to help staff identify which issues must be 

brought forward to management for consideration as potential 

construction lessons learned. 

Regarding analysis, NRC analyzes potential construction lessons 

learned through screening meetings that are described in 

NRO-REG-112. 

Regarding implementation, NRC does not have a procedure that 

documents how a lesson learned is implemented through the CIP. 

 Resources: NRC does not identify the level of expertise required for 

staff involvement in the construction lessons learned evaluation 

process. Staff members, ranging in experience from interns to branch 

chiefs, participate in daily screening meetings and make decisions on 

whether or not to move issues forward for consideration as potential 

lessons learned. According to an agency manager involved in these 

daily screening meetings, attendance is based more on staff 

availability than expertise. 

OIG interviewed staff at several Federal and private entities who 

acknowledged that well-developed lessons learned programs are 

essential to their organization’s success. As shown in Table 1, the 

lessons learned programs in these organizations reflect the key 

elements identified by the Construction Industry Institute related to the 

definition, collection and implementation of lessons learned information 

and available resources. For example, most of the organizations 

contacted have a formal definition of lessons learned and specific 

expectations regarding the level of experience or training for the staff 

involved in evaluating potential lessons learned issues. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

8 

Table 1. Examples of Federal and Private Entity Lessons Learned Program Elements 

Agency/ 

Organization

Definition Collection Implementation Resources 

NRC 

(CIP/NRO-REG-112)

No Access for entering issues into 

the process is limited. 

Some lessons learned 

are incorporated into 

program guidance. 

However, information 

sharing occurs in an 

ad hoc fashion. 

NRC screens potential 

lessons learned. No 

specified qualifications 

required for screeners.

FEDERAL AGENCY A 

Yes Any employee can enter any 

issue directly into the lessons 

learned process for 

consideration. 

Staff can directly access 

the lessons learned 

database and issues are 

shared on a real-time 

basis so that offices can 

revise their programs. 

Lead office experts screen 

and evaluate potential 

lessons learned material. 

FEDERAL AGENCY B 

Yes Any employee can enter any 

issue directly into the lessons 

learned process for 

consideration. 

Staff can directly access 

the lessons learned 

database. The agency 

routinely publishes 

individual documents 

with in-depth analyses of 

significant lessons 

learned. 

Issues entered into the 

process are screened by 

subject matter technical 

experts. 

PRIVATE ENTITY A 

Yes Any employee can enter any 

issue directly into the lessons 

learned process for 

consideration. 

Staff can directly access 

the lessons learned 

database. 

Institutionalized lessons 

learned are incorporated 

in program guidance; 

other issues are retained 

for trending purposes. 

Issues entered into the 

process are screened by 

senior managers and 

technical experts. 

PRIVATE ENTITY B 

No Any employee can enter any 

issue directly into the lessons 

learned process for 

consideration. 

Staff and external 

stakeholders can directly 

access the lessons 

learned database. 

Significant lessons 

learned are promptly 

communicated to the 

nuclear industry to allow 

changes to program 

guidance. 

Issues are subject to a 

double-layer screening 

process, both performed by 

senior, experienced staff. 

Source: OIG analysis 

 Maintenance and Improvement: According to NRO-REG-112, NRC 

will periodically review its construction lessons learned process to 

assess effectiveness. The review should include an assessment of the 

process’ efficiency and effectiveness, as well as the feedback from 

internal stakeholders. The review should also identify areas for 

improvement as appropriate. 

 Culture: NRC’s culture includes senior management’s consistent 

emphasis that knowing and understanding old and new lessons 

learned is vital to the success of the CIP. However, NRC managers 

acknowledged that there is no uniform sharing of construction-related 

lessons learned information. Instead, the sharing occurs in an ad hoc 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

9 

manner, such as conversations between colleagues, through generic 

communications and other agency documents, in periodic briefings, 

and through access to the construction experience database. 

Construction Lessons Learned Guidance Is Not Fully Developed; 

NRC Could Miss Opportunities

NRO-REG-112 lays out the foundation for evaluating construction lessons 

learned; however, the guidance does not comprehensively discuss all the 

elements identified as important to the success of a lessons learned 

program. As such, the lack of a comprehensive, well-developed guidance 

could jeopardize the CIP’s ability to successfully: 

 Identify potentially significant negative and positive lessons learned. 

 Use lessons learned to inform and revise inspection activities, as 

necessary. 

 Achieve its goal to prevent recurrences of previously identified 

construction problems. 

 Enhance public confidence in NRC’s ability to effectively oversee new 

nuclear construction projects. 

According to NRC, successful implementation of the CIP is closely tied to 

the level of experience and qualifications of the agency’s inspectors. 

However, agency managers caution that the majority of NRC’s 

construction inspection staff will have little, if any, actual experience 

overseeing construction activities when assigned to work in the field. 

Therefore, without fully developed guidance, agency inspection staff could 

miss opportunities to identify and analyze potentially significant negative 

and positive lessons learned associated with construction activities. This 

becomes especially important in NRC’s current regulatory environment, 

which has seen no new domestic nuclear power plant construction in more 

than 20 years. 

Recommendation

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Enhance CIP guidance, which includes NRO-REG-112, to include key 

elements identified as important to the success of an organization’s 

lessons learned program. Specifically: 

a. Define “lessons learned” as it applies to new reactor 

construction. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

10 

b. Establish and document collection criteria for the types of 

information that CIP staff should bring forward for screening as 

potential lessons learned. 

c. Further develop and document how a construction-related 

lesson learned will be implemented through the CIP. 

d. Establish and document the level of expertise required for staff 

participation in the daily screening meetings. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

11 

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS 

An exit conference was held with NRC senior executives on 

September 16, 2009. Agency officials generally agreed with the report’s 

finding and recommendations and decided not to provide formal 

comments. This final report incorporates informal comments provided by 

the agency, as appropriate. 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

12 

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of NRC’s Oversight of Construction at New Nuclear Facilities 

13 

Appendix 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The objective of this audit was to determine if and how NRC is identifying 

and incorporating lessons learned in its new construction inspection 

program. To address the audit objective, OIG analyzed CIP documents, 

and reviewed relevant management controls and related documentation 

from internal and external sources, including: 

 

 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear 

Power Plants.

 NUREG-1055, Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the 

Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants: A Report to 

Congress, May 1984. 

 NUREG-1789, 10 CFR Part 52 Construction Inspection Program 

Framework Document, April 2004. 

 NRO-REG-112, New Reactor Construction Experience Program, 

March 31, 2009. 

 Construction Industry Institute: Research Summary 230-1; 

Implementation Resource 230-2, and Research Report 230-11. 

Additionally, auditors observed Operating Experience Branch screening 

meetings between April 3 and May 18, 2009, and conducted interviews 

with NRC senior management and staff from headquarters and Region II 

and individuals from external organizations, including Federal Government 

agencies and private industry entities. 

OIG conducted this audit between December 2008 and June 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Major contributors to this report are Sherri Miotla, Team Leader; 

Catherine Colleli, Audit Manager; Eric Rivera, Audit Manager; 

Timothy Wilson, Senior Analyst; and Vidya Sathyamoorthy, Student 

Management Analyst.